Homeopathic migraine relief

[Dr. Imago]

Now just waiting for the shingle to make it official...


I just did, and you just read it.

I most assuredly did not. Going to the messages page to see who sent me a message does not equate to opening it. Want to get Darat involved to verify that? Nor did I read the other one you just sent entitled "you have low self-esteem" or some such. Are you sure you're qualified to make such an assessment anyway?

And I actually have the shingle now, so you can call me doctor. What are your credentials again?

Besides, what does all your ranting have to do with disputing the fact that homeopathy is bullocks? That "gives" a P < 0.000001 for certain. ("Gives" a P value... still chuckling at that one. You should attempt first to understand what you're ranting about before you rant. It's bad enough to rant; it's much worse to be a ranting jackass.)

-TT

(edit: thanks for the heads-up, by the way, so I could remember to change my tagline. Guess you're not completely worthless.)

(2nd edit: Congratulations! You've also made my ignore list [only the second person, in the past 4 years that I've been a member, to do so]. I've determined that you have nothing of value to add to this forum, so I'm not going to bother reading your inane posts any longer.)

 

[Rolfe]

a.k.a "AWC" (adequate and well-controlled)

But, I agree. If you repeatedly bang yourself in the head with a hammer, and you tell people that you can reliably do this over and over again, you're still only proving that you know how to bang yourself in the head with a hammer. It doesn't elucidate the reason as to why you are banging yourself in the head with a hammer.

Point being, that I doubt if you'd get off the fingers of one hand when listing "AWC" studies that have fluked a marginally positive effect for homoeopathy. Xanta (Gold/Olaf/QII/yaw/nerr) keeps claiming "dozens and dozens", which I would interpret as implying at least 48 (4 dozen), but this is a bare-faced lie.

In fact when she starts listing references, she can't get beyond her three favourite review articles, Kleijnen, Boissel and Linde, and knows no more about these than the incorrect information she copied off a lying homoeopathy puff site. As we know, none of the three gives any more than the most tentative support to homoeopathy (perhaps there's something there, but we can't be sure because the quality of the studies is so poor), and Linde, the most positive, actually recanted in a later publication.

So really, all this basophil stuff is looking for a mechanism for an effect which doesn't actually exist.

Rolfe.

PS. Congratulations, Doctor!

 

[Dr. Imago]

Point being, that I doubt if you'd get off the fingers of one hand when listing "AWC" studies that have fluked a marginally positive effect for homoeopathy. Xanta (Gold/Olaf/QII/yaw/nerr) keeps claiming "dozens and dozens", which I would interpret as implying at least 48 (4 dozen), but this is a bare-faced lie.

None of these observations have a thing to do with homeopathic principles, but there indeed may be another far more complex (yet logical) explanation as to why some of the observations are being made, and it has to do with some of the known intrinsic properties specific to basophils, which are still arguably the least important (and certainly fewest in number) cell in the immune system. Still, nothing in any study that's been done by Davenas, Ennis, Benveniste, et al. in anyway shows a reproducible dose-response effect (i.e., their observation that higher dilutions cause a greater degranulation rate). Their camp keeps trying to argue that it does, but no one (besides them) seems to be able to get this effect.

Regardless, the effects are very complex and rely on an a fairly sophisticated understanding of receptor upregulation and the known and accepted principles of molecular biology. Most "woo", like Olaf, simply want to simplistically fall back on their "kindergartenesque" understanding of these principles and are satisfied when a finding meets their preconceived notion of what they simplistically believe should be occurring. Life is far more complex. The devil is in the details, so to speak.

Yet, they choose to abandon all additional thought or criticism of the matter, regardless of the fact that they've only ever demonstrated a superficial understanding of the same. They choose instead to accept - as fact - whatever "science" (regardless as to whether or not it is revealed to be junk and/or a inadequate version) comes along that even remotely appears to support what they already believe to be true. They somehow take this as a sign that their beliefs are now "validated", which is understandable from a human nature standpoint. But, it still does not make what they believe fact, especially when that "science" has yet to be rigorously evaluated and reproduced. The real irony is that they are willing to heavily criticize the science with which they don't agree, but don't give the same latitude to anything that supports their woo-woo notions.

Quite simply, most rational people know that this is not how Science works. And, people like Olaf/QII are only interested in churlishly and childishly foisting their infantile "beliefs" (and that's all they are) on such matters once they feel they've been personally validated, regardless as to whether or not they actually have been. (You are a child, Olaf. Grow up and join the real world with the rest of us adults.)

In fact when she starts listing references, she can't get beyond her three favourite review articles, Kleijnen, Boissel and Linde, and knows no more about these than the incorrect information she copied off a lying homoeopathy puff site. As we know, none of the three gives any more than the most tentative support to homoeopathy (perhaps there's something there, but we can't be sure because the quality of the studies is so poor), and Linde, the most positive, actually recanted in a later publication.

I'm done with Olaf/QII, who is clearly nothing more than, at best, an immature interloper and, at worst, a troll. Still, I'm preparing a full and careful rebuttal to this whole nonsense that I will post separately on this forum, one that will be scientifically parsimonious and logical based on the facts as well as hopefully answer for the time being, in a more common sensical way, what it is exactly that we know about this observed phenomenon and what may be causing it.

So really, all this basophil stuff is looking for a mechanism for an effect which doesn't actually exist.

Well, there actually may be an effect, but I assure you that it has nothing to do with the principles of homeopathy. The main problem with Benveniste's original conclusion in the 1988 study is that he went to the dark side and proposed a bizarre, off-the-wall, and completely unsupportable mechanism for the observations he made that didn't fit with any known properties of one of the most thoroughly studied molecules known to man: water. Just bizarre. Unfortunately, many of the "woo" saw this as license to then accept this finding as fact. Funny how 'selective science' seems to work in their minds, foolishly keeping the bathwater and throwing out the baby.

PS. Congratulations, Doctor!

Thank you, doctor.

More to come on this topic. Stay tuned...

-TT

 

[Rolfe]

None of these observations have a thing to do with homeopathic principles, but there indeed may be another far more complex (yet logical) explanation as to why some of the observations are being made, and it has to do with some of the known intrinsic properties specific to basophils, which are still arguably the least important (and certainly fewest in number) cell in the immune system. Still, nothing in any study that's been done by Davenas, Ennis, Benveniste, et al. in anyway shows a reproducible dose-response effect (i.e., their observation that higher dilutions cause a greater degranulation rate). Their camp keeps trying to argue that it does, but no one (besides them) seems to be able to get this effect.

I decided I could do with revising basophil function, in the context of all this, and started to read a pretty solid wodge of textbook. The amusing bit was, the book was published in 1986, and several of the references listed were to "Benveniste et al.", with dates in the early-to-mid 1970s. Back before he completely lost his marbles. I second what you were saying about the complexity, and it wouldn't hurt me to read it all again for luck. (Interestingly the author of the textbook is Indian, and Hindu - though resident in California - and the acknowledged world expert on comparative and veterinary haematology. Which kind of puts the current nonsense from the Indian and Pakistani brigade in context.)

.... They choose instead to accept - as fact - whatever "science" (regardless as to whether or not it is revealed to be junk and/or a inadequate version) comes along that even remotely appears to support what they already believe to be true. They somehow take this as a sign that their beliefs are now "validated", which is understandable from a human nature standpoint. But, it still does not make what they believe fact, especially when that "science" has yet to be rigorously evaluated and reproduced. The real irony is that they are willing to heavily criticize the science with which they don't agree, but don't give the same latitude to anything that supports their woo-woo notions.

I noticed. I recall that Xanta (Olaf/QII on the H'pathy forum) simply came out and stated flatly that "the negative studies are flawed. The positive studies are not flawed." when pressed on this. She of course couldn't advance a single argument to support this point of view.

Well, there actually may be an effect, but I assure you that it has nothing to do with the principles of homeopathy. The main problem with Benveniste's original conclusion in the 1988 study is that he went to the dark side and proposed a bizarre, off-the-wall, and completely unsupportable mechanism for the observations he made that didn't fit with any known properties of one of the most thoroughly studied molecules known to man: water. Just bizarre. Unfortunately, many of the "woo" saw this as license to then accept this finding as fact. Funny how 'selective science' seems to work in their minds, foolishly keeping the bathwater and throwing out the baby.

Actually, the "effect" I was referring to that doesn't exist is the alleged clinical properties of homoeopathic remedies. This is all a desperate attempt to find a mechanism for something that doesn't happen. I don't know what's going on, to be honest, but I think Madeleine is playing some sort of weird game. I'll be surprised if there's any more to this than there was to the Fleischmann/Pons cold fusion experiments, actually. Just an unstable system and cherry-picked data.

Rolfe.

 

[Dr. Imago]

Just an unstable system and cherry-picked data.

Could be. Could also have something to do with transient ligand-receptor interaction and the "hair-trigger" nature of the basophil, both of which prove to be confounding variables as well as make a poor model for attempting to quantify and demonstrate validity to homeopathic principles.

Again, I am working on (what I believe) is a solid rebuttal based on the collection of some pertinent facets and novel ideas of the limitation of the experimental methodology regarding these use of basophils as surrogate markers in the attempt to prove the "homeopathic effect". From my current literature review, these points have yet to be thoroughly addressed. However, it's going to take some time. As well, I'm plan on running it by one of my old immunology professors before I post it here. Perhaps we'll even be able to develop a publishable editorial out of it... which may happen first. We'll see.

-TT

 

[Rolfe]

Could be. Could also have something to do with transient ligand-receptor interaction and the "hair-trigger" nature of the basophil, ....

Ah yes, that was the bit where I went cross-eyed and decided maybe I should start that chapter again!

Rolfe.

 

[Olaf/QII]

Could be. Could also have something to do with transient ligand-receptor interaction and the "hair-trigger" nature of the basophil, both of which prove to be confounding variables as well as make a poor model for attempting to quantify and demonstrate validity to homeopathic principles.

Again, I am working on (what I believe) is a solid rebuttal based on the collection of some pertinent facets and novel ideas of the limitation of the experimental methodology regarding these use of basophils as surrogate markers in the attempt to prove the "homeopathic effect". From my current literature review, these points have yet to be thoroughly addressed. However, it's going to take some time. As well, I'm plan on running it by one of my old immunology professors before I post it here. Perhaps we'll even be able to develop a publishable editorial out of it... which may happen first. We'll see.

-TT

Oh I just love it!!!

Can't wait to see what you come up with.

You do know that it all comes crashing down in the face of...

a control sample of water succussed/vortexed E-X-A-C-T-L-Y the same way ---and same number of times as the histamine vortexed and diluted sample.

--and when they run these through 2700+ data points they come up with ..........

p< .0001

 

[geni]

Oh I just love it!!!

Can't wait to see what you come up with.

You do know that it all comes crashing down in the face of...

a control sample of water succussed/vortexed E-X-A-C-T-L-Y the same way ---and same number of times as the histamine vortexed and diluted sample.

--and when they run these through 2700+ data points they come up with ..........

p< .0001

And when groups who don't involve Ennis try and repeat it they get zilch.

 

[Olaf/QII]

And when groups who don't involve Ennis try and repeat it they get zilch.

Not entirely true at all. soon i will unveil my collection of in vitro DBPC studies from all over the world to back that up.

Concerning Ennis and friends, it just so happens that she and her pals have been working with basophils since 1981 --- that is a long time. She is most qualified to perform these tests. others are not.

That is why we had the HORRIBLY!!!!!!!!!!!!! BOTCHED BBC experiment a little while ago

1. fetal calf serum
2. ammonium chloride
3. letting the cells sit on a bench for 4 hours

Need I say more?

------------------------------------------------

One other thing, very few scientists care about this, and if they do then they are usually terrified for their professional lives.

WITCHHUNTS ARE STILL TAKING PLACE IN THE SCIENCE COMMUNITY. APPARENTLY 1000'S OF YEARS OF Experience has not taught anyone a lesson.

 

[Olaf/QII]

What are your credentials again?

modesty prevents me from sharing that information

 

[geni]

Not entirely true at all. soon i will unveil my collection of in vitro DBPC studies from all over the world to back that up.

Concerning Ennis and friends, it just so happens that she and her pals have been working with basophils since 1981 --- that is a long time. She is most qualified to perform these tests. others are not.

That is why we had the HORRIBLY!!!!!!!!!!!!! BOTCHED BBC experiment a little while ago

1. fetal calf serum
2. ammonium chloride
3. letting the cells sit on a bench for 4 hours

Need I say more?

Evidences?

One other thing, very few scientists care about this, and if they do then they are usually terrified for their professional lives.

I rather doub't that I mean why should a LC chemist be worried?

WITCHHUNTS ARE STILL TAKING PLACE IN THE SCIENCE COMMUNITY. APPARENTLY 1000'S OF YEARS OF Experience has not taught anyone a lesson.

We did learn a lot from cold fusion and ether. You see we've recently had another case where the involvement of one personn was key to getting results.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Evidences?

None. Liars just love to lie.

 

[Olaf/QII]

Evidences?


I rather doub't that I mean why should a LC chemist be worried?

there is plenty of evidence. all you have to do is open your eyes and mind and read it.

There is a revolution about to take place in chemistry. let me introduce you to some INCREDIBLE and EARTHSHAKING evidence that strongly supports the science of ultra dilute solutions.


http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conte...s0xyib.victoria





New Physico-Chemical Properties of Extremely Diluted Aqueous Solutions
Authors: Elia V.1; Niccoli M.2

Source: Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry, 2004, vol. 75, no. 3, pp. 815-836(22)

Publisher: Kluwer Academic Publishers

< previous article | next article > View Table of Contents

full text options

Abstract:

The extremely diluted solutions are anomalous solutions obtained through the iteration of two processes: a dilution 1:100 in mass and a succussion. The iteration is repeated until extreme dilutions are reached (less than 1·10-5 mol kg-1) to the point that we may call the resulting solution an extremely diluted solution, namely the composition of the solution is identical to that of the solvent used (e.g. twice distilled water). We conducted thermodynamic and transport measurements of the solutions and of the interaction of those solutions with acids or bases. The purpose of this study is to obtain information about the influence of successive dilutions and succussions on the water structure of the solutions under study. We measured the heats of mixing of acid or basic solutions with such extremely diluted solutions, their electrical conductivity and pH, comparing with the analogous heats of mixing, electrical conductivity and pH of the solvent. We found some relevant exothermic excess heats of mixing, higher electrical conductivity and pH than those of the untreated solvent. The measurements show a good correlation between independent physico-chemical parameters. Care was taken to take into account the effect of chemical impurities deriving from the glass containers. Here we thus show that successive dilutions and succussions can permanently alter the physico-chemical properties of the water solvent. The nature of the phenomena here described still remains unexplained, nevertheless some significant experimental results were obtained.
Keywords: solute-solvent interaction; calorimetry; pH; sulutions; conductivity; aqueous solution

Language: Unknown

Document Type: Research article

DOI: 10.1023/B:JTAN.0000027178.11665.8f

Affiliations: 1: Department of Chemistry, University 'Federico II' of Naples, Complesso Universitario di Monte S. Angelo, via Cintia 80126 Naples, Italy, Email: elia@chemistry.unina.it 2: Department of Chemistry, University 'Federico II' of Naples, Complesso Universitario di Monte S. Angelo, via Cintia 80126 Naples, Italy

 

[Olaf/QII]

None. Liars just love to lie.

the real dishonest people are those who refuse to objectively look at the evidence.


are all of these people liars eos of the eons?



List of approximately 100 MDs and professors who know that ultra dilute soln's work


Prof. Heusser P, Anthroposophic Medicine, KIKOM, University of Bern, CH4144 Arlesheim, Switzerland.

Dr. Horvilleur Alain, MD, President of O.M.H.I, Lyon, France

Dr. Imberechts Jacques, MD, President of European Committee for Homeopathy,Bruxelles, Belgium

Mr. Ives Galen, M. Sc, Psychometric Methods, Blackie Foundation, UK

Dr. Jacobs Jennifer, MD, Homeopathic Research Network, 23200 Edmonds Way, Edmonds Wa 98026, USA

Dr. Jenkins Michaël , MD, Consultant Physician, Royal London Homeopathic Hospital, London, UK.

Dr. Jonas Wayne B, Department of Family Medicine, University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, USA

Prof. Kouadio Luc, Hydrology & Public Health, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Abidjan, Ivory Coast

Dr. Lagache Agnès, Docteur en Philosophie, Paris, France

Dr. Lemaire Catherine, Maitre de Conference, Université MontpellierII, 34060 Montpellier, France

Dr. Leung-Tack Jeanne , U233 CNRS, Toulouse, France

Dr. Levrat Marc, Homeopath MD, St Cyr les Vignes, France

Dr. Linde Klaus, Institute of Pharmaceutical Biology, München, Germany

Prof. Michel Manfait , Biomolecular Spectroscopy, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Reims, France

Prof. Mata Leonardo, Infection and Nutrition, School of Medicine & INISA, University of Costa Rica, San José, Costa Rica
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. ------------------approximately 100 professors and MDs KNOW that SOMETHING with respect to ultra dilute solutions is working!!!

 

[Lisa Simpson]

Are we already back to 100 European MDs, the Queen of England and 10,000 Elvis Impersonators can't be wrong?

Or was that some other troll? It's so hard to keep them all straight in my mind.

 

[Zep]

the real dishonest people are those who refuse to objectively look at the evidence.


are all of these people liars eos of the eons?



List of approximately 100 MDs and professors who know that ultra dilute soln\'s work


Prof. Heusser P, Anthroposophic Medicine, KIKOM, University of Bern, CH4144 Arlesheim, Switzerland.

Dr. Horvilleur Alain, MD, President of O.M.H.I, Lyon, France

Dr. Imberechts Jacques, MD, President of European Committee for Homeopathy,Bruxelles, Belgium

Mr. Ives Galen, M. Sc, Psychometric Methods, Blackie Foundation, UK

Dr. Jacobs Jennifer, MD, Homeopathic Research Network, 23200 Edmonds Way, Edmonds Wa 98026, USA

Dr. Jenkins Michaël , MD, Consultant Physician, Royal London Homeopathic Hospital, London, UK.

Dr. Jonas Wayne B, Department of Family Medicine, University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, USA

Prof. Kouadio Luc, Hydrology & Public Health, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Abidjan, Ivory Coast

Dr. Lagache Agnès, Docteur en Philosophie, Paris, France

Dr. Lemaire Catherine, Maitre de Conference, Université MontpellierII, 34060 Montpellier, France

Dr. Leung-Tack Jeanne , U233 CNRS, Toulouse, France

Dr. Levrat Marc, Homeopath MD, St Cyr les Vignes, France

Dr. Linde Klaus, Institute of Pharmaceutical Biology, München, Germany

Prof. Michel Manfait , Biomolecular Spectroscopy, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Reims, France

Prof. Mata Leonardo, Infection and Nutrition, School of Medicine & INISA, University of Costa Rica, San José, Costa Rica
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. ------------------approximately 100 professors and MDs KNOW that SOMETHING with respect to ultra dilute solutions is working!!!

Actually, this list is merely of people who are members of some \"forum\" that is supposedly investigating homeopathic science. That does NOT automatically mean that they \"know that ultra dilute soln\'s work\". I\'m an official member of the Australian Witchcraft Association, but I happen to think that witchcraft is total bunkum (sorry, wiccans here) - I only joined so I could get their magazine to dispute it because they don\'t send it to non-members. You\'ve made a massive logical leap that is unwarranted and unsustainable in associating your assertion with this list of people.

Second, would you please list for us here the peer-reviewed scientific papers of this organisation they belong to. Note: NOT their individual publications, I mean the group publications. OK?

 

[Donks]

Second, would you please list for us here the peer-reviewed scientific papers of this organisation they belong to. Note: NOT their individual publications, I mean the group publications. OK?

Zep: Check out "The Corporeal Signifier Theory" in the download section. Speaks volumes.

ETA: It's like reading a summary of Kumar's threads.

 

[Perpetual Notion]

the real dishonest people are those who refuse to objectively look at the evidence.

are all of these people liars eos of the eons?



List of approximately 100 MDs and professors who know that ultra dilute soln's work


Blah, blah, blah.

. ------------------approximately 100 professors and MDs KNOW that SOMETHING with respect to ultra dilute solutions is working!!!

I googled a few of these people and guess what, they're homeopaths.

So, approximately 100 homeopaths agree that homeopathy work. I'm so surprised.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

there is plenty of evidence. all you have to do is open your eyes and mind and read it.

[/COLOR]

Sorry, I'll keep my brain in my head thank you. Plenty of evidence? Plenty of unconvincing non-proven garbage that cannot be validated. Thanks for nothing.

 

[Zep]

Zep: Check out "The Corporeal Signifier Theory" in the download section. Speaks volumes.

ETA: It's like reading a summary of Kumar's threads.

Exactly. I did just that. And I wonder if Xanta did? What's more (to spoil my own joke), that appears to be about ALL there is from this crowd.